It’s not often I’ll start out with a news post on Monday, but if I sit on some of these links, they’ll go stale.

Bill to legalize silencers passes out of committee…. in Massachusetts. I think the hearing argument is a powerful one. We should ask our opponents why they want people to go deaf? Traditional hearing protection can interfere with the ability to hear range commands, which is also a safety issue.

Anti-gun Republicans are a rare breed these days, but where I grew up, you can still find them in the wild. There’s almost nowhere to shoot in Delco. There’s one club, and one public range, and I’ve seen enough unsafe things in that public range that I won’t shoot there. That’s not good for a healthy gun culture.

Miguel on Colorado Magazine Ban: “When you see Dudley Brown, Be Sure to Thank Him.” The Dems were willing to cut a deal to do at least a partial repeal of the ban, but it was scuttled by Dudley. Now Coloradans are probably stuck with the 15 round limit forever.

That’s why I reacted with “there’s plenty of authoritarianism to go around.” Trump’s followers may be a special breed, but I never got the impression that Bush, for instance, was a wild-eyed civil libertarian.

This reminds me about a study that someone once made, when he noticed that all the studies that find conservatives are “authoritarian” and “respect authority” tended to only include authorities that conservatives find agreeable, like the military and ecclesiastical leaders. When he threw out things like “environmental experts”, he found that the left was just as authoritarian as any conservative–they just needed an authority they agreed with!

I made my comment before I looked at the WaPo article. That article made me cringe. It has distinct “My idea of authoritarianism *is* authoritarianism” problems.

Indeed, in addition to being biased to consider religious people as “authoritarian”, it strikes me as the type that would consider engineers “anti-authoritarian” because an engineer won’t trust an “expert” until the expert demonstrates a fair amount of expertise.

There was not anything close to a concerted effort by the dems at compromise last year. 1 dem, who squeaked by in his election made an offhand comment about a compromise. He did not speak for the party & no further discussion by the party followed.

IF they did offer a 30 round compromise I’d be agin it, as that 30 round limit would almost completely eliminate any possibility of a successful court challenge to the law (one is on appeal now in the 10th circuit, the other viable avenue is still waiting in the wings).

The most telling aspect of the WaPo article is the American Identity aspect. It reinforces the notion that those on the left carry a fundamental antipathy towards America. I’m not sure whether Trump is the solution, a ruse by the powers that be, or an inarticulate manifestation of populist anger. I guess time will be the judge. Personally, I’d rather the populist banner be carried by an American Putin than Captain Comb-over. But, given the nature of the American citizenry, perhaps Trump is all we’re entitled to.

Sebastian,
Then we’re stuck with it, as the dems never attempted to cut a deal, nor do I foresee any reason for them to cut a deal in the future.

But I disagree about the courts not being a possible option for getting rid of the damned thing. I doubt the 10th circuit will find its pro-constitutional ephipany before or during a firearms case, but as I keep pointing out, there’s an Interstate Commerce Clause strategy that should work, & even get approval from Scotus.

Besides, a lot of us not only flagrantly but boastfully disregard this law. One is only stuck when one chooses to be.

In any case, the main point I was trying to make, & have been trying to make for a while, is that there was NO deal. All of this internecine bickering is over an flippant quip by a congresscritter who was worried about his job security. He wasn’t speaking for the dems or bloomberg. I don’t mind a split over ideological grounds (to compromise or not to compromise) but we should at least wait until a compromise is possible before we get all hung up about it. (Yes, this means I’m opposed to pre-compromising too).

The thing I like about that anti-drone system is the fact that it captures the drone safely. It’s kindof a taser option: if a drone is annoying you, but you want to provide the owner a warning rather than go full-on destruction of property, it’s a nice, non-destructive option.

On the other hand, I have no idea how much that thing is going to cost: I bet it’s not “affordable” if you’re a renter who only has drone problems once a year, if that.

Heck, it *might* become unaffordable (or at least, not worth the cost) even for airports and prisons, if the threat turns out to be over-stated. (Well, prisons, not so much: chances are, they are smuggling devices, so they are worth the effort of capture…but airports? as drones become more popular, people will become more aware that you aren’t supposed to fly drones around them, as you aren’t supposed to fly kites or rockets around them either…)